Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Andiasavaloo Naidoo - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in13Ind.Cas.832a
AppellantEmperor
RespondentAndiasavaloo Naidoo
Excerpt:
madras city muncipility act (iii of 1904), sections 262, 420 - keeping a paudal without license--'shall bi made,' meaning of--absence of proof that accused constructed the building--acquittal. - .....the madras city municipality act by failing to take out a license for keeping a pardal having an external roof covered with inflammable materials. the municipality was unable to prove that the accused constructed the building. the magistrate, in consequence, acquitted him. section 262 is in these terms: 'no external roof, verandab, pandal or wall of a building shall be made of grass, leaves, mats or inflammable material except with the written permission of the president.'2. the contention for the crown is that the expression 'shall be made' does not mean 'shall be composed of' and that, therefore, the existence of pandal composed of grass, leaves, mats or other in flammable materials without the permission of the president would be an offence. it is clear to our minds that this is not.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal by the Government against the order of acquittal passed by one of the Presidency Magistrates of Madras in C.C. No. 612 of 1911 in which the the accused was charged with an offence under Sections 262 and 420 of the Madras City Municipality Act by failing to take out a license for keeping a pardal having an external roof covered with inflammable materials. The Municipality was unable to prove that the accused constructed the building. The Magistrate, in consequence, acquitted him. Section 262 is in these terms: 'No external roof, verandab, pandal or wall of a building shall be made of grass, leaves, mats or inflammable material except with the written permission of the President.'

2. The contention for the Crown is that the expression 'shall be made' does not mean 'shall be composed of' and that, therefore, the existence of pandal composed of grass, leaves, mats or other in flammable materials without the permission of the President would be an offence. It is clear to our minds that this is not he natural and usual earning of the word 'made' and the Act itself makes it clear that that is not the meaning, for in Schedule XVI or the Act, Section 262 is set out in there words: 'Construction of external roof, etc.' Besides, if it is the existence of such a roof that constitutes the offence, who is the offender and who is to be taken to have contravened the provision of Section 262? We must hold that the order of acquittal is right and dismiss the appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //